2 GUIDELINES FOR ACUTE NONSPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN Based on systematic reviews and existing clinical guidelines Summary of recommendations for diagnosis of acute non-specific low back pain: Case history and brief examination should be carried out If history taking indicates possible serious spinal pathology or nerve root syndrome, carry out more extensive physical examination including neurological screening when appropriate Undertake diagnostic triage at the first assessment as basis for management decisions Be aware of psychosocial factors, and review them in detail if there is no improvement Diagnostic imaging tests (including X-rays, CT and MRI) are not routinely indicated for non-specific low back pain Reassess those patients who are not resolving within a few weeks after the first visit, or those who are following a worsening course Summary of recommendations for treatment of acute non-specific low back pain: Give adequate information and reassure the patient Do not prescribe bed rest as a treatment Advise patients to stay active and continue normal daily activities including work if possible Prescribe medication, if necessary for pain relief; preferably to be taken at regular intervals; first choice paracetamol, second choice NSAIDs Consider adding a short course of muscle relaxants on its own or added to NSAIDs, if paracetamol or NSAIDs have failed to reduce pain Consider (referral for) spinal manipulation for patients who are failing to return to normal activities Multidisciplinary treatment programmes in occupational settings may be an option for workers with sub-acute low back pain and sick leave for more than 4-8 weeks 2

3 Objectives The primary objective of these European evidence-based guidelines is to provide a set of recommendations that can support existing and future national and international guidelines or future updates of existing guidelines. These guidelines intend to improve the primary care management of acute nonspecific low back pain for adult patients in Europe, by: 1. Providing recommendations on the clinical management of acute non-specific low back pain in primary care. 2. Ensuring an evidence-based approach through the use of systematic reviews and existing clinical guidelines. 3. Providing recommendations that are generally acceptable by all health professions in all participating countries. 4. Enabling a multidisciplinary approach; stimulating collaboration between primary health care providers and promoting consistency across providers and countries in Europe. Target population The target population of the guidelines consists of individuals or groups that are going to develop new guidelines or update existing guidelines, and their professional associations that will disseminate and implement these guidelines. Indirectly, these guidelines also aim to inform the general public, patients with low back pain, health care providers (for example, general practitioners, physiotherapists, chiropractors, manual therapists, occupational physicians, orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, rehabilitation physicians, neurologists, anaesthesiologists and other health care providers dealing with patients suffering from acute non-specific low back pain), and policy makers in Europe. Guidelines working group The guidelines were developed within the framework of the COST ACTION B13 Low back pain: guidelines for its management, issued by the European Commission, Research Directorate-General, department of Policy, Co-ordination and Strategy. The guidelines working group consisted of experts in the field of low back pain research in primary care who have been involved in the development of national guidelines for 3

4 low back pain in their countries. Members were invited to participate, taking into account that all relevant health professions should be represented. The group consisted of 10 men and 4 women with various professional backgrounds. All countries that had already issued national guidelines were represented [NL: Bekkering, Koes, Van Tulder; Fra: Rozenberg; Ger: Becker; UK: Breen, Carter, Hutchinson; DK: Kryger-Baggesen; Fin: Malmivaara; Sui: Roux; Swe: Nachemson]. Because the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have produced most of the systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, these two countries were represented by more than one participant. The guidelines working group had its first meeting in November In December 2000, the first draft of the guidelines was prepared. Three subsequent meetings in February, April and May 2001 were used to discuss this draft. The draft was circulated through among the members of the working group for their final comments and approval. Finally, the final draft was sent for peer review to the members of the Management Committee of COST B13 and discussed at two subsequent meetings in December 2001 and April Two meetings in December 2003 and March 2004 were used to update the evidence review and guideline recommendations. An update of the guidelines is recommended within three years, when new evidence has become available. Evidence The main evidence was not systematically reviewed again for the purpose of this guideline, because 1) there already is a large amount of evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute non-specific low back pain, 2) this evidence has already been summarised in many systematic reviews, and 3) this evidence has already been translated into clinical recommendations in various national clinical guidelines. To ensure an evidence-based approach, the recommendations were based on Cochrane reviews (and on other systematic reviews if a Cochrane review was not available), additional trials published after the Cochrane reviews, and existing national guidelines. The authors of this guideline had no financial conflict of interest and were not involved in quality assessment or discussion of their own papers. The systematic reviews were identified using the results of validated search strategies in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and, if relevant, other electronic databases, performed for Clinical Evidence, a monthly, updated directory of evidence 4

5 on the effects of common clinical interventions, published by the BMJ Publishing Group (www.evidence.org). The literature search covered the period from 1966 to October A search for clinical guidelines was first performed in Medline. Since guidelines are only infrequently published in medical journals we extended the search on the Internet (using search terms back pain and guidelines, and searching national health professional association and consumers websites) and identified guidelines by personal communication with experts in the field. A three-stage development process was undertaken. First, recommendations were derived from systematic reviews. Secondly, existing national guidelines were compared and recommendations from these guidelines summarised. Thirdly, the recommendations from the systematic (Cochrane) reviews and guidelines were discussed by the group. A section was added to the guidelines in which the main points of debate are described. The recommendations are put in a clinically relevant order; recommendations regarding diagnosis have a letter D, treatment T. A grading system was used for the strength of the evidence (Appendix 1). This grading system is simple and easy to apply, and shows a large degree of consistency between the grading of therapeutic and preventive, prognostic and diagnostic studies. The system is based on the original ratings of the AHCPR Guidelines (1994) and levels of evidence recommended in the method guidelines of the Cochrane Back Review group [1,2]. The strength of the recommendations was not graded. Several of the existing systematic reviews have included non-english language literature, usually publications in French, German, and Dutch language and sometimes also Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and Swedish. All existing national guidelines included studies published in their own language. Consequently, the non- English literature is covered for countries that already have developed guidelines. The group additionally included the Spanish literature, because this evidence was not covered by existing reviews and guidelines (see Appendix IV). The Working Group aimed to identify gaps in the literature and included recommendations for future research. 5

6 Introduction Definitions Low back pain is defined as pain and discomfort, localised below the costal margin and above the inferior gluteal folds, with or without leg pain. Acute low back pain is usually defined as the duration of an episode of low back pain persisting for less than 6 weeks; sub-acute low back pain as low back pain persisting between 6 and 12 weeks; chronic low back pain as low back pain persisting for 12 weeks or more. In this guideline, recommendations are related to both acute and sub-acute low back pain unless specifically stated otherwise. Recurrent low back pain is defined as a new episode after a symptom-free period of 6 months, but not an exacerbation of chronic low back pain. Non-specific low back pain is defined as low back pain not attributed to recognisable, known specific pathology (e.g. infection, tumour, osteoporosis, ankylosing spondylitis, fracture, inflammatory process, radicular syndrome or cauda equina syndrome). Red flags The initial clinical history taking should aim at identifying red flags of possible serious spinal pathology.[3] Red flags are risk factors detected in low back pain patients past medical history and symptomatology and are associated with a higher risk of serious disorders causing low back pain compared to patients without these characteristics. If any of these are present, further investigation (according to the suspected underlying pathology) may be required to exclude a serious underlying condition, e.g. infection, inflammatory rheumatic disease or cancer. Red flags are signs in addition to low back pain. These include:[3] Age of onset less than 20 years or more than 55 years Recent history of violent trauma Constant progressive, non mechanical pain (no relief with bed rest) Thoracic pain Past medical history of malignant tumour Prolonged use of corticosteroids Drug abuse, immunosuppression, HIV 6

8 Symptoms, pathology and radiological appearances are poorly correlated. Pain is not attributable to pathology or neurological encroachment in about 85% of people. About 4% of people seen with low back pain in primary care have compression fractures and about 1% has a neoplasm. Ankylosing spondylitis and spinal infections are rarer. The prevalence of prolapsed intervertebral disc is about 1% to 3%.[6] Risk factors are poorly understood. The most frequently reported are heavy physical work, frequent bending, twisting, lifting, pulling and pushing, repetitive work, static postures and vibrations.[5] Psychosocial risk factors include stress, distress, anxiety, depression, cognitive dysfunction, pain behaviour, job dissatisfaction, and mental stress at work.[5,7,8] Acute low back pain is usually self-limiting (recovery rate 90% within 6 weeks) but 2%-7% of people develop chronic pain. Recurrent and chronic pain account for 75% to 85% of total workers absenteeism.[5,9] Outcomes The aims of treatment for acute low back pain are to relieve pain, to improve functional ability, and to prevent recurrence and chronicity. Relevant outcomes for acute low back pain are pain intensity, overall improvement, back pain specific functional status, impact on employment, generic functional status, and medication use. [10] Intervention-specific outcomes may also be relevant, for example coping and pain behaviour for behavioural treatment, strength and flexibility for exercise therapy, depression for antidepressants, and muscle spasm for muscle relaxants. Structure of the guideline The guideline includes recommendations on diagnosis and treatment. We have included these as separate chapters starting with diagnosis. However, there will be some overlap between the diagnosis and treatment sections because in clinical practice diagnosis at the first visit will probably lead to treatment. If patients fail to recover and require reassessment, this will probably lead to review of the management plan. We have included the reassessment section in the chapter on diagnosis for practical reasons. 8

9 Diagnosis of acute low back pain For most patients with acute low back pain a thorough history taking and brief clinical examination is sufficient. The primary purpose of the initial examination is to attempt to identify any red flags and to make a specific diagnosis. It is, however, wellaccepted that in most cases of acute low back pain it is not possible to arrive at a diagnosis based on detectable pathological changes. Because of that several systems of diagnosis have been suggested, in which low back pain is categorised based on pain distribution, pain behaviour, functional disability, clinical signs etc. However, none of these systems of classification have been critically validated. A simple and practical classification, which has gained international acceptance, is by dividing acute low back pain into three categories the so-called diagnostic triage : Serious spinal pathology Nerve root pain / radicular pain Non-specific low back pain The priority in the examination procedure follows this line of clinical reasoning. The first priority is to make sure that the problem is of musculoskeletal origin and to rule out non-spinal pathology. The next step is to exclude the presence of serious spinal pathology. Suspicion therefore is awakened by the history and/or the clinical examination and can be confirmed by further investigations. The next priority is to decide whether the patient has nerve root pain. The patient s pain distribution and pattern will indicate that, and the clinical examination will often support it. If that is not the case, the pain is classified as non-specific low back pain. The initial examination serves other important purposes besides reaching a diagnosis. Through a thorough history taking and physical examination, it is possible to evaluate the degree of pain and functional disability. This enables the health care professional to outline a management strategy that matches the magnitude of the problem. Finally, the careful initial examination serves as a basis for credible information to the patient regarding diagnosis, management and prognosis and may help in reassuring the patient. 9

10 D1 Diagnostic triage Evidence D1 Although there is general consensus on the importance and basic principles of differential diagnosis, there is little scientific evidence on the diagnostic triage (level D). History taking One systematic review of 9 studies evaluated the accuracy of history in diagnosing low back pain in general practice.[11] The review found that history taking does not have a high sensitivity and high specificity for radiculopathy and ankylosing spondylitis. The combination of history and erythrocyte sedimentation rate had a relatively high diagnostic accuracy in vertebral cancer (level A). Physical examination One systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled diagnostic Odds Ratio for straight leg raising for nerve root pain was 3.74 (95% CI ); sensitivity for nerve root pain was high ( ), but specificity was low ( ).[12] All included studies were surgical case-series at non-primary care level. Most studies evaluated the diagnostic value of SLR for disc prolapse. The pooled diagnostic Odds Ratio for the crossed straight leg raising test was 4.39 (95% CI ); with low sensitivity ( ) and high specificity (( ). The authors concluded that the studies do not enable a valid evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of the straight leg raising test (level A).[12] Clinical guidelines D1 All guidelines propose some form of diagnostic triage in which patients are classified as having (1) possible serious spinal pathology; red flag conditions such as tumour, 10

11 infection, inflammatory disorder, fracture, cauda equina syndrome, (2) nerve root pain, and (3) non-specific low back pain. All guidelines are consistent in their recommendations that diagnostic procedures should focus on the identification of red flags and the exclusion of specific diseases (sometimes including radicular syndrome). Red flags are signs in addition to low back pain and include, for example, age of onset less than 20 years or more than 55 years, significant trauma, thoracic pain, weight loss, and widespread neurological symptoms. The types of physical examination and physical tests that are recommended show some variation. Neurological screening, which is largely based on the straight leg raising test (SLR), plays an important role in most guidelines. Discussion / commentary D1 Diagnostic triage is essential to further management of the patient even though the level of evidence is not strong. Individual red flags do not necessarily link to specific pathology but indicate a higher probability of a serious underlying condition that may require further investigation. Multiple red flags need further investigation. The aim of history taking and physical examination is contributing to the diagnosis, exclude serious pathology, and identify risk factors for poor outcomes. The group agrees that extensive physical examination is not always necessary for patients without any indication of serious spinal pathology or nerve root pain. It is considered that a brief physical examination is always an essential part of the management of acute low back pain. A properly conducted straight leg raising test is the most accurate test to identify nerve root pain. The group strongly agrees that history taking and physical examination should be carried out by a health professional with competent skills. Competence will depend on appropriate training. 11

12 Recommendation D1 Undertake diagnostic triage consisting of appropriate history taking and physical examination at the first assessment to exclude serious spinal pathology and nerve root pain. If serious spinal pathology and nerve root pain are excluded, manage the low back pain as non-specific. D2 Psychosocial risk factors Evidence D2 One systematic review was found of 11 cohort and 2 case-control studies evaluating psychosocial risk factors for the occurrence of low back pain.[7] Strong evidence was found for low social support in the workplace and low job satisfaction as risk factors for low back pain (level A). There was moderate evidence that psychosocial factors in private life are risk factors for low back pain (level B). There was also strong evidence that low job content had no effect on the occurrence of low back pain (level A). Conflicting evidence was found for a high work pace, high qualitative demands, and low job content (level C). Another systematic review found that there is strong evidence that psychosocial factors play an important role in chronic low back pain and disability, and moderate evidence that they are important at a much earlier stage than previously believed (level A).[8] 12

13 Clinical guidelines D2 All guidelines, with varying emphasis, mention the importance of considering psychosocial factors as risk factors for the development of chronic disability. There is, however, considerable variation in the amount of detail given about how to assess psychosocial factors or the optimal timing of the assessment, and specific tools for identifying these factors are scarce. The UK guideline [3] gives a list describing four main groups of psychosocial risk factors, whilst the New Zealand guideline [4,13] gives by far the most attention towards explicit screening of psychosocial factors, using a standardised questionnaire.[14] Discussion / consensus D2 The group strongly agrees that there should be awareness of psychosocial factors from the first visit in primary care to identify patients with an increased risk of developing chronic disability. The group suggests considering it useful information for later management. Explicit screening of psychosocial factors (for example by using specific questionnaires or instruments) may be performed when there are recurrent episodes or no improvement. Recommendation D2 Assess for psychosocial factors and review them in detail if there is no improvement. D3 Diagnostic imaging Evidence D3 One systematic review was found that included 31 studies on the association between X-ray findings of the lumbar spine and non-specific low back pain.[15] The 13

14 results showed that degeneration, defined by the presence of disc space narrowing, osteophytes and sclerosis, is consistently and positively associated with non-specific low back pain with Odds Ratios ranging from 1.2 (95% CI ) to 3.3 (95% CI ). Spondylolysis/listhesis, spina bifida, transitional vertebrae, spondylosis and Scheuermann s disease did not appear to be associated with low back pain (level A). There is no evidence on the association between degenerative signs at the acute stage and the transition to chronic symptoms. A recent review of the diagnostic imaging literature (magnetic resonance imaging, radionuclide scanning, computed tomography, radiography) concluded that for adults younger than 50 years of age with no signs or symptoms of systemic disease, diagnostic imaging does not improve treatment of low back pain. For patients 50 years of age and older or those whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost completely rule out underlying systemic diseases. The authors concluded that advanced imaging should be reserved for patients who are considering surgery or those in whom systemic disease is strongly suspected (level A).[16] A recent RCT of 380 patients aged 18 years or older whose primary physicians had ordered that their low back pain be evaluated by radiographs determined the clinical and economic consequences of replacing spine radiographs with rapid MRI.[17] Although physicians and patients preferred the rapid MRI, there was no difference between rapid MRIs and radiographs in outcomes for primary care patients with low back pain. The authors concluded that substituting rapid MRI for radiographic evaluations in the primary care setting may offer little additional benefit to patients, and it may increase the costs of care because of the increased number of spine operations that patients are likely to undergo. 14

15 Clinical guidelines D3 The guidelines are consistent in the recommendation that plain X-rays are not useful in acute non-specific low back pain and that X-rays should be restricted to cases suspected of specific underlying pathology (based on red flags ). In some guidelines X-rays are suggested as optional in case of low back pain persisting for more than 4 to 6 weeks).[1,3,18,19] None of the guidelines recommend any form of radiological imaging for acute, non-specific low back pain while the US and UK guidelines overtly advise against.[1,3] Discussion / consensus D3 Although there is some evidence for an association between severe degeneration and non-specific low back pain, the group agrees that the association is only weak and that it does not have any implications for further management. If a patient with low back pain but no red flags shows signs of disc space narrowing, this has no implications for the choice of therapy or the chances of recovery. The risks of the high doses of radiation in X-rays of the lumbar spine do not justify routine use. The group strongly agrees that diagnostic imaging tests should not be used if there are no clear indications of possible serious pathology or radicular syndrome. The type of imaging test that may be used in such cases is outside the scope of this guideline. Although X-rays are commonly used for reassurance, there is no evidence to support this. A randomised trial even showed that radiography of the lumbar spine was not associated with improved clinical outcomes, but with increased workload of the general practitioners.[20] 15

16 Recommendation D3 Diagnostic imaging tests (including X-rays, CT and MRI) are not routinely indicated for acute non-specific low back pain. D4 Reassessment of patients whose symptoms fail to resolve Evidence D4 There is no scientific evidence on the reassessment of patients (level D). Clinical guidelines D4 Most guidelines do not specifically address reassessment. The New Zealand guidelines stated that A reasonable approach for most patients is a review by the end of the first week, unless symptoms have completely resolved.[13] It may be appropriate to arrange an earlier review, to reinforce the message to keep active and avoid prolonged bed rest. The Dutch guidelines advise reassessment at follow-up visits after 1 week if severe pain does not subside, after 3 weeks if the symptoms are not diminishing, and after 6 weeks if there is still disability or if there is no progress in function, or if pain does not decline.[21] The Danish guidelines recommend reevaluation after 2 and 4 weeks if low back pain is unchanged or worsened.[19] Discussion / consensus D4 The group feels that the thresholds for reassessment of 4-6 weeks used in most existing guidelines are arbitrary and suggests using them flexibly, because the interval between onset and first visit to a primary health care provider is variable. Reassessment should include psychosocial factors. The group agrees that diagnostic imaging at this stage still does not add anything to the management strategy if there are no red flags. Recommendation D4 Reassess those patients who are not resolving within a few weeks after the first visit or those who are following a worsening course. Exclude serious pathology and nerve root pain. If identified, consider further appropriate management. Identify psychosocial factors and manage appropriately. 16

17 Treatment for acute low back pain Various health care providers may be involved in the treatment of acute low back pain in primary care. Although there may be some variations between European countries, general practitioners, physiotherapists, manual therapists, chiropractors, exercise therapists (e.g., Alexander, Feldenkrais, Mendendieck, Cesar therapists), McKenzie therapists, orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, physiatrists (specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation) and others, may all be involved in providing primary care for people with acute low back pain. It is important that information and treatment are consistent across professions, and that all health care providers closely collaborate with each other. Treatment of acute low back pain in primary care aims at: 1) providing adequate information, reassuring the patient that low back pain is usually not a serious disease and that rapid recovery is expected in most patients; 2) providing adequate symptom control, if necessary; and 3) recommending the patient to stay as active as possible and to return early to normal activities, including work. An active approach is the best treatment option for acute low back pain. Passive treatment modalities (for example bed rest, massage, ultrasound, electrotherapy, laser and traction) should be avoided as mono-therapy and not routinely be used, because they may increase the risk of illness behaviour and chronicity. Recommendations included in these guidelines relate mainly to pain causing activity limitations or to patients seeking care. Referral to secondary health care should usually be limited to patients in whom there is a suspicion of serious spinal pathology or nerve root pain (see diagnostic triage). Recommendations for treatment are only included if there is evidence from systematic reviews or high quality RCTs on acute non-specific low back pain. No RCTs have been identified on various commonly used interventions for acute low back pain, for example acupuncture, heat/cold, electrotherapy, ultrasound, trigger point and facet joint injections, and physiotherapy (defined by a combination of information, exercise therapy and physical modalities (e.g, massage, ultrasound, electrotherapy)). 17

18 T1 Information and reassurance Evidence T1 One non-systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions for back pain in primary care.[22] One study showed that an educational booklet decreased the number of visits to a general practitioner for back pain. Another study showed that a 15-minute session with a primary care nurse plus an educational booklet and a follow-up phone call resulted in greater short-term patient satisfaction and perceived knowledge compared with usual care, but symptoms, physical functioning and health care utilisation were not different (level C). In another trial published after the review, patients were given either an experimental booklet (the Back Book ) or a traditional booklet.[23] Patients receiving the experimental booklet showed greater early improvement in beliefs and functional status but there was no effect on pain (level C). The review is not systematic and trials included in the review have various controls and outcomes. A Cochrane review is currently being conducted. Guidelines T1 Most guidelines recommend reassuring patients. The UK, US, Swiss, Finnish and Dutch guidelines recommend providing reassurance by explaining that there is nothing dangerous and that a rapid recovery can be expected.[1,3,21,24-26] The US guidelines also stated that patients who do not recover within a few weeks may need more extensive education about back problems and told that special studies may be considered if recovery is slow.[1] The Swiss guidelines added that it is important to reassure patients through adequate information instead of making them insecure by stating that nothing was found.[24,25] The New Zealand guidelines stated that it is important to let the patient know that, if a full history and examination have uncovered no suggestion of serious problems, no further investigations are needed. [13] Discussion T1 The group recommends reassuring the patient by acknowledging the pain of the patient, being supportive and avoiding negative messages. It is important to give a full explanation in terms that the patient understands, for example, back pain is very common; although back pain is often recurrent, usually the outlook is very good; hurting does not mean harm; it could arise from various structures, such as muscles, 18

19 discs, joints or ligaments. Cover the points discussed elsewhere in this guideline as appropriate. Core items of adequate information should be: good prognosis, no need for x- rays, no underlying serious pathology, and stay active. Consistency across professions is very important. Recommendation T1 Give adequate information and reassure the patient. T2 Bed rest Evidence T2 Six systematic reviews (10 RCTs, no statistical pooling) evaluated the effect of bed rest for acute low back pain.[1,27-31] Five RCTs (n=921) compared bed rest to alternative treatments, e.g., exercises, physiotherapy, spinal manipulation, or NSAIDs. They found either no differences or that bed rest was worse using outcomes of pain, recovery rate, time to return to daily activities and sick leave (level A). Five RCTs (n=663) found that bed rest was no different or worse than no treatment or placebo (level A). Two RCTs (n=254) found that seven days of bed rest was no different from 2 to 4 days bed rest. Clinical guidelines T2 There now appears to be broad consensus that bed rest should be discouraged as treatment for low back pain.[24-26,32,33] Some guidelines state that if bed rest is indicated (because of severity of pain), it should not be advised for more than 2 days.[13,18,19,21,34] The UK guideline suggests that some patients may be confined to bed for a few days but that should be regarded as a consequence of their pain and should not be considered a treatment.[3] The US guidelines stated that the majority of back pain patients will not require bed rest, and that prolonged bed rest for more than 4 days may lead to debilitation and is not recommended.[1] Discussion / consensus T2 The group agrees that bed rest does not promote recovery. Adverse effects of bed rest are joint stiffness, muscle wasting, loss of bone mineral density, and venous 19

20 thrombo-embolism.[1] Prolonged bed rest may lead to chronic disability and may impair rehabilitation. Recommendation T2 Do not prescribe bed rest as a treatment. T3 Advice to stay active Evidence T3 Two systematic reviews found that advice to stay active (with or without other treatments) reduced disability, pain, and time spent off work compared with bed rest (with or without other treatments).[31,35] One systematic review of eight RCTs found that there is strong evidence that advice to stay active is associated with equivalent or faster symptomatic recovery, and leads to less chronic disability and less time off work than bed rest or usual care (level A).[31] Advice to stay active was either provided as single treatment or in combination with other interventions such as back schools, a graded activity programme or behavioural counselling. Two RCTs (n=228) found faster rates of recovery, less pain and less disability in the group advised to stay active than in the bed rest group. Five RCTs (n=1500) found that advice to stay active led to less sick leave and less chronic disability compared to traditional medical treatment (analgesics as required, advice to rest and let pain be your guide ). The other systematic review included four trials with a total of 491 patients.[35] Advice to stay active was compared to advice to rest in bed in all trials. The results were inconclusive. Results from one high quality trial of patients with acute simple LBP found small differences in functional status and length of sick leave in favour of staying active compared to advice to stay in bed for two days. One of the high quality trials also compared advice to stay active with exercises for patients with acute simple LBP, and found improvement in functional status and reduction in sick leave in favour of advice to stay active. Two subsequent RCTs do not change the conclusion [36,37]. Clinical guidelines T3 Guidelines in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden all recommend advice to stay 20

Low Back Pain Protocols Introduction: Diagnostic Triage And 1. Patient Group Adults aged 18 years and over with routine low back problems. Patients who have had recent surgery should be referred directly

CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF LOW BACK PAIN Low back pain is very common, up to 90+% of people are affected by back pain at some time in their lives. Most often back pain is benign and

Issue date: May 2009 Low back pain Early management of persistent non-specific low back pain Developed by the National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care About this booklet This is a quick reference

High Prevalence and Incidence Prevalence 85% of Americans will experience low back pain at some time in their life. Incidence 5% annual Timothy C. Shen, M.D. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sub-specialty

Herniated Lumbar Disc North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is a Herniated Disc? The spine is made up of a series of connected bones called vertebrae. The disc is a combination of strong

Copyright 2009 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Cervical Spondylosis (Arthritis of the Neck) Neck pain is extremely common. It can be caused by many things, and is most often related to getting

Acute Low Back Pain North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is Acute Low Back Pain? Acute low back pain (LBP) is defined as low back pain present for up to six weeks. It may be experienced

LOW BACK INJURIES PROGRAM OF CARE PROGRAM OF CARE 4TH EDITION 2014 GUIDE Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The WSIB would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the following regulated Health

Is manual physical therapy more effective than other physical therapy approaches in reducing pain and disability in adults post whiplash injury? Clinical Bottom Line Manual therapy may have a role in the

Spinal Pain The Spine Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center developed the following detailed eplanation of our care pathways for primary care providers to help support your interactions with patients

New Zealand Acute Low Back Pain Guide - May 1999 New Zealand Acute Low Back Pain Guide January 1997 edition The 1999 Edition of the NZ Acute Low Back Pain Guide 1999 Update on the Natural History of Acute

Low Back Injury in the Industrial Athlete: An Anatomic Approach Earl J. Craig, M.D. Assistant Professor Indiana University School of Medicine Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Epidemiology

Herniated Disk Introduction Your backbone, or spine, has 24 moveable vertebrae made of bone. Between the bones are soft disks filled with a jelly-like substance. These disks cushion the vertebrae and keep

Temple Physical Therapy A General Overview of Common Neck Injuries For current information on Temple Physical Therapy related news and for a healthy and safe return to work, sport and recreation Like Us

Herniated Cervical Disc North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is a Herniated Disc? The backbone, or spine, is composed of a series of connected bones called vertebrae. The vertebrae

Cervical Spondylosis (Arthritis of the Neck) Page ( 1 ) Neck pain can be caused by many things but is most often related to getting older. Like the rest of the body, the disks and joints in the neck (cervical

Page 1 of 5 Cervical Spondylosis This leaflet is aimed at people who have been told they have cervical spondylosis as a cause of their neck symptoms. Cervical spondylosis is a 'wear and tear' of the vertebrae

H E A L T H R I S K M A N A G E M E N T MANAGING BACK PAIN MANAGING BACK PAIN GETTING YOU BACK INTO ACTION GETTING YOU BACK INTO ACTION www.healthcare-rm.com Who is this for? CONTENTS Introduction about

MRI for cervical radiculopathy Referral by a medical practitioner (excluding a specialist or consultant physician) for a scan of spine for a patient 16 years or older for suspected: cervical radiculopathy

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is Lumbar Spinal Stenosis? The vertebrae are the bones that make up the lumbar spine (low back). The spinal canal runs through

Chronic Low Back Pain North American Spine Society Public Education Series What is Chronic Pain? Low back pain is considered to be chronic if it has been present for longer than three months. Chronic low

SPINAL STENOSIS Information for Patients WHAT IS SPINAL STENOSIS? The spinal canal is best imagined as a bony tube through which nerve fibres pass. The tube is interrupted between each pair of adjacent

Non-specific low back pain and sciatica: management NICE guideline: short version Draft for consultation, March 0 [straight after consultation editors delete the consultation box and transfer the 'This

A systematic review of focused topics for the management of spinal cord injury and impairment icahe, University of South Australia For the NZ Spinal Cord Impairment Strategy Introduction This was the third

Whiplash and Whiplash- Associated Disorders North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is Whiplash? The term whiplash might be confusing because it describes both a mechanism of injury and

Sciatica Yuliya Mutsa PTA 236 Sciatica is a common type of pain affecting the sciatic nerve, which extends from the lower back all the way through the back of the thigh and down through the leg. Depending

Diagnosis and Management for Chronic Back Pain: Critical for your Recovery Dr. Connie D Astolfo, DC, PhD (candidate) In past articles I have stressed that the causes of back pain can be very complex. This

Chiropractic Care of Lower Back Pain Lower back pain is probably the most common condition seen the the Chiropractic office. Each month it is estimated that up to one third of persons experience some type

Notice of Independent Review Decision DATE OF REVIEW: 08/15/08 IRO CASE #: NAME: DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICE OR SERVICES IN DISPUTE: Determine the appropriateness of the previously denied request for physical

Proposed Changes to Existing Measure for HEDIS 1 2017: Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain (LBP) NCQA seeks comments on proposed changes to the HEDIS measure Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain

Lumbar Disc Herniation/Bulge Protocol Anatomy and Biomechanics The lumbar spine is made up of 5 load transferring bones called vertebrae. They are stacked in a column with an intervertebral disc sandwiched

Orthopaedic Approaches to Chronic Neck and Lower Back Pain David C. Urquia, MD Augusta Orthopaedic Associates / Waterville Orthopedics Introduction We see many patients who have longstanding pain in the

Castleknock GAA club member and Chartered Physiotherapist, James Sherry MISCP, has prepared an informative article on the common causes of back pain and how best it can be treated. To book a physiotherapy

With/Without Contrast CT, MRI Studies should NOT be ordered simultaneously as dual studies (i.e., with and without contrast). Radiation exposure is doubled and both views are rarely necessary. The study

Management pathway: whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) This management tool is a guide intended to assist general practitioners and health professionals delivering primary care to adults with acute or

A chiropractic approach to managing migraine What is chiropractic? Chiropractic is a primary healthcare profession that specialises in the diagnosis, treatment and overall management of conditions that

INFORMATION FOR YOU Lower Back Pain WHAT IS ACUTE LOWER BACK PAIN? Acute lower back pain is defined as low back pain present for up to six weeks. It may be experienced as aching, burning, stabbing, sharp

New York State Workers' Comp Board Mid and Lower Back Treatment Guidelines Summary From 1st Edition, June 30, 2010 Effective December 1, 2010 General Principles Treatment should be focused on restoring

So your back hurts Learn what works, what doesn t and how to help yourself. HEAD My back hurts: some reassuring words 2 Some common myths about back pain 4 What should I do for my back pain? 6 Choosing

Hitting a Nerve: The Triggers of Sciatica Bruce Tranmer MD FRCS FACS Disclosures I have no financial disclosures Objectives - Sciatica Historical Perspective What is Sciatica What can cause Sciatica Clinical

Spine University s Guide to Cauda Equina Syndrome 2 Introduction Your spine is a very complicated part of your body. It s made up of the bones (vertebrae) that keep it aligned, nerves that channel down

Guideline for Management of Primary Headache in Adults July 2012 This summary provides an evidence-based practical approach to assist primary health care providers in the diagnosis and management of adult

1 Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Joint Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Pain Society (APS) Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 147,

MANAGEMENT OF CHRONIC NON MALIGNANT PAIN Introduction The Manitoba Prescribing Practices Program (MPPP) recognizes the important role served by physicians in relieving pain and suffering and acknowledges

MUS and psychiatry in primary care Henriëtte van der Horst VUmc Head of Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine Double Dutch: two topics Major changes in the mental health care organisation

Pain Management Following Injury for Health Professionals and Introduction Pain is a common problem following SCI. In the case where a person with SCI does have pain, there are treatments available that